The cost-effectiveness of therapy with teriparatide and alendronate in women with severe osteoporosis

Hau Liu, Kaleb D Michaud, Smita Nayak, David B. Karpf, Douglas K. Owens, Alan M. Garber

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

64 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Teriparatide is a promising new agent for the treatment of osteoporosis. Methods: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of teriparatide-based strategies compared with alendronate sodium for the first-line treatment of high-risk osteoporotic women. We developed a microsimulation with a societal perspective. Key data sources include the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures, the Fracture Intervention Trial, and the Fracture Prevention Trial. We evaluated postmenopausal white women with low bone density and prevalent vertebral fracture. The interventions were usual care (UC) (calcium or vitamin D supplementation) compared with 3 strategies: 5 years of alendronate therapy, 2 years of teriparatide therapy, and 2 years of teriparatide therapy followed by 5 years of alendronate therapy (sequential teriparatide/alendronate). The main outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Results: For the base-case analysis, the cost of alendronate treatment was $11 600 per QALY compared with UC. The cost of sequential teriparatide/alendronate therapy was $156 500 per QALY compared with alendronate. Teriparatide treatment alone was more expensive and produced a smaller increase in QALYs than alendronate. For sensitivity analysis, teriparatide alone was less cost-effective than alendronate even if its efficacy lasted 15 years after treatment cessation. Sequential teriparatide/alendronate therapy was less cost-effective than alendronate even if fractures were eliminated during the alendronate phase, although its cost-effectiveness was less than $50 000 per QALY if the price of teriparatide decreased 60%, if used in elderly women with T scores of -4.0 or less, or if 6 months of teriparatide therapy had comparable efficacy to 2 years of treatment. Conclusions: Alendronate compares favorably to interventions accepted as cost-effective. Therapy with teriparatide alone is more expensive and produces a smaller increase in QALYs than therapy with alendronate. Sequential teriparatide/alendronate therapy appear expensive but could become more cost-effective with reductions in teriparatide price, with restriction to use in exceptionally high-risk women, or if short courses of treatment have comparable efficacy to that observed in clinical trials.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1209-1217
Number of pages9
JournalArchives of Internal Medicine
Volume166
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 12 2006

Fingerprint

Teriparatide
Alendronate
Osteoporosis
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Costs and Cost Analysis
Therapeutics
Withholding Treatment
Osteoporotic Fractures
Information Storage and Retrieval

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

The cost-effectiveness of therapy with teriparatide and alendronate in women with severe osteoporosis. / Liu, Hau; Michaud, Kaleb D; Nayak, Smita; Karpf, David B.; Owens, Douglas K.; Garber, Alan M.

In: Archives of Internal Medicine, Vol. 166, No. 11, 12.06.2006, p. 1209-1217.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Liu, Hau ; Michaud, Kaleb D ; Nayak, Smita ; Karpf, David B. ; Owens, Douglas K. ; Garber, Alan M. / The cost-effectiveness of therapy with teriparatide and alendronate in women with severe osteoporosis. In: Archives of Internal Medicine. 2006 ; Vol. 166, No. 11. pp. 1209-1217.
@article{d4f2fdde72384560afbb78b6098b7a35,
title = "The cost-effectiveness of therapy with teriparatide and alendronate in women with severe osteoporosis",
abstract = "Background: Teriparatide is a promising new agent for the treatment of osteoporosis. Methods: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of teriparatide-based strategies compared with alendronate sodium for the first-line treatment of high-risk osteoporotic women. We developed a microsimulation with a societal perspective. Key data sources include the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures, the Fracture Intervention Trial, and the Fracture Prevention Trial. We evaluated postmenopausal white women with low bone density and prevalent vertebral fracture. The interventions were usual care (UC) (calcium or vitamin D supplementation) compared with 3 strategies: 5 years of alendronate therapy, 2 years of teriparatide therapy, and 2 years of teriparatide therapy followed by 5 years of alendronate therapy (sequential teriparatide/alendronate). The main outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Results: For the base-case analysis, the cost of alendronate treatment was $11 600 per QALY compared with UC. The cost of sequential teriparatide/alendronate therapy was $156 500 per QALY compared with alendronate. Teriparatide treatment alone was more expensive and produced a smaller increase in QALYs than alendronate. For sensitivity analysis, teriparatide alone was less cost-effective than alendronate even if its efficacy lasted 15 years after treatment cessation. Sequential teriparatide/alendronate therapy was less cost-effective than alendronate even if fractures were eliminated during the alendronate phase, although its cost-effectiveness was less than $50 000 per QALY if the price of teriparatide decreased 60{\%}, if used in elderly women with T scores of -4.0 or less, or if 6 months of teriparatide therapy had comparable efficacy to 2 years of treatment. Conclusions: Alendronate compares favorably to interventions accepted as cost-effective. Therapy with teriparatide alone is more expensive and produces a smaller increase in QALYs than therapy with alendronate. Sequential teriparatide/alendronate therapy appear expensive but could become more cost-effective with reductions in teriparatide price, with restriction to use in exceptionally high-risk women, or if short courses of treatment have comparable efficacy to that observed in clinical trials.",
author = "Hau Liu and Michaud, {Kaleb D} and Smita Nayak and Karpf, {David B.} and Owens, {Douglas K.} and Garber, {Alan M.}",
year = "2006",
month = "6",
day = "12",
doi = "10.1001/archinte.166.11.1209",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "166",
pages = "1209--1217",
journal = "JAMA Internal Medicine",
issn = "2168-6106",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The cost-effectiveness of therapy with teriparatide and alendronate in women with severe osteoporosis

AU - Liu, Hau

AU - Michaud, Kaleb D

AU - Nayak, Smita

AU - Karpf, David B.

AU - Owens, Douglas K.

AU - Garber, Alan M.

PY - 2006/6/12

Y1 - 2006/6/12

N2 - Background: Teriparatide is a promising new agent for the treatment of osteoporosis. Methods: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of teriparatide-based strategies compared with alendronate sodium for the first-line treatment of high-risk osteoporotic women. We developed a microsimulation with a societal perspective. Key data sources include the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures, the Fracture Intervention Trial, and the Fracture Prevention Trial. We evaluated postmenopausal white women with low bone density and prevalent vertebral fracture. The interventions were usual care (UC) (calcium or vitamin D supplementation) compared with 3 strategies: 5 years of alendronate therapy, 2 years of teriparatide therapy, and 2 years of teriparatide therapy followed by 5 years of alendronate therapy (sequential teriparatide/alendronate). The main outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Results: For the base-case analysis, the cost of alendronate treatment was $11 600 per QALY compared with UC. The cost of sequential teriparatide/alendronate therapy was $156 500 per QALY compared with alendronate. Teriparatide treatment alone was more expensive and produced a smaller increase in QALYs than alendronate. For sensitivity analysis, teriparatide alone was less cost-effective than alendronate even if its efficacy lasted 15 years after treatment cessation. Sequential teriparatide/alendronate therapy was less cost-effective than alendronate even if fractures were eliminated during the alendronate phase, although its cost-effectiveness was less than $50 000 per QALY if the price of teriparatide decreased 60%, if used in elderly women with T scores of -4.0 or less, or if 6 months of teriparatide therapy had comparable efficacy to 2 years of treatment. Conclusions: Alendronate compares favorably to interventions accepted as cost-effective. Therapy with teriparatide alone is more expensive and produces a smaller increase in QALYs than therapy with alendronate. Sequential teriparatide/alendronate therapy appear expensive but could become more cost-effective with reductions in teriparatide price, with restriction to use in exceptionally high-risk women, or if short courses of treatment have comparable efficacy to that observed in clinical trials.

AB - Background: Teriparatide is a promising new agent for the treatment of osteoporosis. Methods: The objective of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of teriparatide-based strategies compared with alendronate sodium for the first-line treatment of high-risk osteoporotic women. We developed a microsimulation with a societal perspective. Key data sources include the Study of Osteoporotic Fractures, the Fracture Intervention Trial, and the Fracture Prevention Trial. We evaluated postmenopausal white women with low bone density and prevalent vertebral fracture. The interventions were usual care (UC) (calcium or vitamin D supplementation) compared with 3 strategies: 5 years of alendronate therapy, 2 years of teriparatide therapy, and 2 years of teriparatide therapy followed by 5 years of alendronate therapy (sequential teriparatide/alendronate). The main outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Results: For the base-case analysis, the cost of alendronate treatment was $11 600 per QALY compared with UC. The cost of sequential teriparatide/alendronate therapy was $156 500 per QALY compared with alendronate. Teriparatide treatment alone was more expensive and produced a smaller increase in QALYs than alendronate. For sensitivity analysis, teriparatide alone was less cost-effective than alendronate even if its efficacy lasted 15 years after treatment cessation. Sequential teriparatide/alendronate therapy was less cost-effective than alendronate even if fractures were eliminated during the alendronate phase, although its cost-effectiveness was less than $50 000 per QALY if the price of teriparatide decreased 60%, if used in elderly women with T scores of -4.0 or less, or if 6 months of teriparatide therapy had comparable efficacy to 2 years of treatment. Conclusions: Alendronate compares favorably to interventions accepted as cost-effective. Therapy with teriparatide alone is more expensive and produces a smaller increase in QALYs than therapy with alendronate. Sequential teriparatide/alendronate therapy appear expensive but could become more cost-effective with reductions in teriparatide price, with restriction to use in exceptionally high-risk women, or if short courses of treatment have comparable efficacy to that observed in clinical trials.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33745055439&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33745055439&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/archinte.166.11.1209

DO - 10.1001/archinte.166.11.1209

M3 - Article

VL - 166

SP - 1209

EP - 1217

JO - JAMA Internal Medicine

JF - JAMA Internal Medicine

SN - 2168-6106

IS - 11

ER -